Staying on top

An excellent leader in The Economist analyses the calibre of chief executives of banks in America.

Only three of the chief executives from the ten largest banks in America during the unfolding of the financial crisis remain. The rest have been asked to leave over the past year.

Some are claiming conspiracy, in that chief executives have manipulated for personal gain. This may appear true considering the lavish perquisites that they showered on themselves - expenses claim on a $87,000 rug, playing a game of bridge as their firms collapsed, almost like Nero. The article compares this to actions of Kenneth Lay of Enron and concludes that most of the current breed were useless.

It says "Far from expertly manipulating their firms' books, many could not even understand them" and "....even when they had decent numbers, executives struggled to manage their mutinuous staff". One ex-boss said "... his job was less of management, more crowd control".

Did acquisition make a difference? No. Acquisitive firms such as BoA, Fortis and RBS floundered. Those who were not acquisitive, such as JP Morgan Chase and Barclays prospered.

Did long-term perspective make a difference? No. Managers at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did have a lot of their personal holdings, but did not focus on the long-term.

Did risk committees make a difference? Hardly. Santander had 98 meetings in 2007 while Credit Suisse's had just six, yet both did much the same.

So, what is generally prescribed by the know-it-alls as required and essential is not necessarily the right thing to do. Its better to be a historian than a politician; an economist rather than an executive. The former have the advantage of hindsight.

The summary "On any measure of banks' boards - experience, gender, age, independence - there were successes as well as failures". "What firms need is a culture of excellence, but that is like saying all football teams should be like Manchester United".

My line "It is remarkable that these executives stayed on the top without staying on top of their jobs."

Mediocrity rules

We had been to a music concert of old hindi film songs from the 60s and the 70s yesterday by a group called 'Klub Nostalgia' held under the aegis of our association Mulund Fine Arts Society at Kalidas Natya Mandir, Mulund. I've heard them several times before, out of which a couple were under our sabha. Anil Bajpai was exceptional, as always; Vinod Seshadri was good in some songs, while average in most others. Others were at their own best, but that's it.

To tell you the truth, I always liked 'Golden Greats', another such group, more. I don't know the entire inside story of how and why singers moved en masse from 'Golden Greats' to 'Klub Nostalgia' so I cannot comment on that.

But 'Golden Greats' was true to what they did; the effort was diligent and impeccable; no compromise whatsoever; you could see them being very passionate about hindi film music of the yesteryears. 'Klub Nostalgia' is, at best, a compromise, a 'chalta hai' effort group. And since the whole world is at a level of mediocrity, they thrive. 

This reflects life, as most matters do. The few who attempt to reach excellence and perfection eventually fall to the sides. And the ones who compromise and insist on the mediocre, keep going. You must only know how to capture the stupid imagination of the masses. The numbers count. If you can't act like Naseeruddin Shah, fool around like Govinda. If you can't sing like Sonu Nigam, there's Kumar Sanu. If you can't create a 'Gulaal' make a 'No Entry'. The world has been returned to the bin.

Friends tell me there are a few things left in the world where excellence still rules. Wimbledon, Oscars, are what come to my mind. With no information contradicting that view, I agree.

But we don't live in that world, do we?

Bombay to Goa

We had been to Goa over the weekend. And I must say, Goa is amazing in the rains. With lesser crowd and a cooler climate, it is the best time to be there.

A little on the journey.

We left at 9.30 pm on Thursday, October 1, 2009, by road. We took the Mumbai-Pune expressway, the Pune-Satara-Kolhapur highway NH-4, turned right at Nipani, and reached Panaji at 9.30 am through Amboli Ghat. We reached the Nipani turn at the wee hours of the morning. The ghat section took time because of the inclement weather, the mist and the rain, the poor visibility. I liked the experience of driving the Amboli ghats when everyone else had slept off in the car. It was just me, my car, my music, the mist, the waterfalls and the winding road ahead.

The return back was more routine. We found a better road back to the Kolhapur expressway, that went through Ajara and Sankeshwar. Thats a better road than what we found on the way to Goa. But we found lot of local traffic on the Kolhapur-Satara belt since it is not an expressway. So there are a lot of turns into villages and towns on both sides of the highway. One has to be careful.

A few facts. The road to Goa through Pune-Satara-Kolhapur via NH-4 is the same distance as the road through NH-17. Both are 590 kms. The old road is more enjoyable, I heard, because it has four ghat sections. But NH-4 should be preferred for night drives. But the highway is safe only during nights, since there is no local traffic.

While on the Kolhapur highway, we turned at Nipani, next to a hotel called Cauvery. Its better to continue further and turn at Sankeshwar. As I said before, that road is better.

On the way, you go through a patch of Karnataka. Maybe a few kilometres. And in this stretch, there is no board in English or Hindi. And there is no mention of Goa anywhere. Its better to ask before you turn.

More on Goa later.